And I just thought of the coal battles fought in the Appalachians in the early part of the 20th century, in which miners were pitted against the bosses of coal towns. So that’s two.
Compared to the number of corrupt politicians run out of town by a free press and the people taking to the streets/speaking their mind, it is still an incredibly lopsided tally.
Of course, no rational person suggests violence as other than a last resort.
“Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge. Use in that order.”
We have a wonderful set of test cases for this question, in the form of nations throughout the world. Some nations, such as our own, have both an armed populace and freedom of speech. Some nations, such as Great Britain, do not have an armed populace, but do have freedom of speech. And some nations, such as Syria, have an armed populace, but do not have freedom of speech. One might argue that a nation such as the United States has a greater degree of freedom than does Great Britain, which, if true (I won’t here debate the point), would tend to indicate that there is some value to having an armed populace. But I know of no example of any nation in the third category (guns but no speech) which is by any standard freer than any nation in the second category (speech but no guns). The First Ammendment is more important than the Second to the same extent that Great Britain is freer than Syria.
My last answer was namby pamby. Out of the two Amendments I’m going to go ahead and say that the 1st is more important. It doesn’t dimnish the value of the 2nd or any other Amendment by declaring one to be more relevant or important then another. After all I’ve never worried about quartering troops in time of peace or war.
Marc
Which indicates that “soap” and “ballot” are incredibly effective if “cartridge” has only been resorted to in an extremely small number of cases.
If we were to compare this to the items in a carpenter’s toolbox, I’d say that the First Amendment might comprise the screwdriver, level, hammer, and measuring tape, and perhaps the Second Amendment is the reciprocating saw. If the sawsall is needed in an unusual case, nothing can replace it; but surely it stands to reason that the screwdriver, hammer, and tape are much, much more important overall.
It’s like eating a meal (the First Amendment) with a fork (the Second Amendment). You may not need need the latter to get the former, but it helps.
Reinforcing the conclusion that bearing arms and democratic governments are unrelated. 